People v. Bali Balita

8/8/2017 People vs Bali-balita : 134266 : September 15, 2000 : J.
Gonzaga-Reyes : En Banc
ENBANC
[G.R.No.134266.September15,2000]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. MELENCIO BALIBALITA,

accusedappellant.
DECISION
GONZAGAREYES,J.:
OnSeptember1,1997,EllaMagdasocyCarbona,11yearsofage,assistedbyhersister,fileda
complaintforrapeagainstMelencioBalibalita,thecommonlawhusbandofhermother,asfollows:
The undersigned accuses MELENCIO BALI-BALITA, common law husband of the complainants mother, of the
crime of Rape, committed as follows:
That on or about the 26th day of August, 1997 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused by means of force
and intimidation, to wit: by then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously undressing the undersigned, a
minor, 11 years of age, and at knife point inserted his ngers at her private part, and thereafter have carnal
knowledge with the undersigned complainant against her will and without her consent.
CONTRARY LAW.[1]
The accused assisted by counsel de oficio entered a plea of not guilty upon arraignment on
September22,1997.
The evidence for the prosecution consists of the testimony of the private complainant Ella, the
medico legal officer, Dr. Ma. Cristina Freyra, and the sister of the complainant, Miriam Gozun y
Carbona.
Thetrialcourtsummarizedtheprosecutionsevidenceasfollows:
Ella Magdasoc, the private complainant, was an eleven year old out-of-school youth who resided at Phase 2,
Payatas B, Quezon City at the time of the incident. The accused, Melencio Bali-Balita, on the other hand, also
resided at the same address being the live-in partner of Retilla Bali-Balita, the private complainants mother.
On August 26, 1997, Ella and her younger siblings were inside their house in Payatas, Quezon City together with
the accused. After eating, they were about to go to sleep when the accused told Ella to go inside the room of her
mother who was not at home at that time. The accused was already inside the same room when Ella entered. The
accused then ordered her to remove her clothes, a pair of shorts and a blouse, and then to get on the bed. When
Ella deed the order of the accused, the latter removed her shorts and underwear, after which he himself
undressed. The accused told Ella to lie down on the bed and thereafter he went on top of her. Ella then started
crying so the accused told her to get up and poked a knife at her. The accused inserted his nger into Ellas
private organ and after that he inserted his private organ into hers. Ella cried as she felt pain but the accused told
her not to make noise. The accused then ordered her to bend her back facing him and then placed himself on top
of her. Ella told the accused that she had to urinate and the accused allowed her to do so but ordered her to return
afterwards. After urinating, Ella did not return to her mothers room anymore and instead went to her room to
sleep. The accused called her back but she did not heed his call.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/134266.htm 1/14
8/8/2017 People vs Bali-balita : 134266 : September 15, 2000 : J. Gonzaga-Reyes : En Banc
After the incident, Ella went to the house of her sister, Miriam Gozun y Carbona, and told the latter what
happened to her. Together, they reported the matter to their mother, Retila Bali-Balita, who, however, found Ellas
story impossible. As their mother was not interested in pursuing the case against her live-in partner, Ella and
Miriam went to the Police Station where they gave statements to the police (Exhs. D to D-2 and Exhs. F to F-1)
pointing to the accused as the one who abused Ella. The accused was later apprehended by the police and a
complaint, docketed as Criminal Case No. 97-72798 (Exhs. E to E-2), was led against him.
At the police station, Ella Magdasoc, the private complainant was referred to the PNP Crime Laboratory
Services for laboratory/medico-legal examination. Upon receipt of the request for medico-legal examination
(Exh. A to A-1 and the consent of Ella thereto, Dr. Ma. Cristina Freyra, medico-legal ofcer of the PNP Crime
Laboratory Services, initially conducted an interview on the victim (Exh. B). Thereafter, Dr. Freyra conducted a
physical/genital examination on the person of Ella, the ndings of which are embodied in Medico-Legal Report
No. M-1237-97 (Exhs. C to C-3). The pertinent ndings thereof are quoted as follows:
xxxxxxxxx
FINDINGS:
GENERAL AND EXTRAGENITAL:
Fairly developed, fairly nourished and coherent female subject. Breasts are undeveloped. Abdomen is at and
soft.
GENITAL:
There is absence of pubic hair. Labia majora are full, convex and coaptated with congested and abraded labia
minora presenting in between. On separating the same disclosed an abraded posterior fourchette and an elastic,
eshy type hymen with deep healed lacerations at 3 and 9 oclock position. External vaginal orice admits the
smallest nger of the examiner.
CONCLUSION:
Subject is in non-virgin state physically.
There are no external signs of recent application of any form of trauma at the time of examination.
REMARKS:
Vaginal and peri-urethral smears are negative for gram-negative diplococci and for spermatozoa.
xxxxxxxxx
Dr. Freyra further testied that in relation to the genital ndings upon the person of the private complainant, the
lacerations inicted on her private parts were healed lacerations, which means that they were inicted more than
seven days prior to the examination.[2]
MelencioBalibalitadeniedtheaccusation.Hetestifiedthat:
He knew the private complainant in this case, the latter being the daughter of his live-in partner, Retilla Bali-
Balita. The accused denied the accusation that he raped Ella at around 3 oclock in the morning on August 26,
1997 as he alleged that he was at Phase I, Payatas V, Upper Payatas, Quezon City attending the wake of a friend
at around 9 oclock in the evening on August 25, 1997 and stayed there together with Retilla Bali-balita until
around 5 oclock in the morning on August 26, 1997. When the accused and Retilla Bali-balita arrived home,
Retillas children, including the private complainant, were still asleep. On this account, Retilla Bali-balita and
Virginia Agatep corroborated the testimony of the accused that he was not at home at the time of the incident.
Further, Retilla Bali-Balita testied that she was not consulted when the case was led against the accused and
that in fact, she learned of it only at around 9 oclock in the evening of August 26, 1997. She also testied that the
accused and her children, including private complainant, had a ne relationship.[3]
The trial court held that the crime of statutory rape was established, as Ella was below twelve
years of age at the time she was raped. The testimony of the victim that the private organ of the
accusedpenetratedherprivatepartwascorroboratedbythefindingsofthedoctorthatEllawasno
longer a virgin, and that there was reddening, discoloration, and abrasion on the labia majora and
minoraoftheprivateorganofthevictim.Thecourtruledthatthedefenseofdenialandalibiraisedby
theaccusedcannotprevailoverthepositiveassertionandidentificationoftheaccusedbythevictim.
Consideringthattheaccusedisthecommonlawspouseofthemotherofthevictimandthatthevictim
was less than twelve (12) years of age at the time of the incident, the court imposed the maximum
penaltyofdeath:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered nding the accused, Melencio Bali-balita, GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of consummated rape dened in and penalized by Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH. The accused is ordered to pay the
victim Ella Magdasoc, the amount of P50,000.00 by way of moral damages, and to pay the costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.[4]
Accusedappellantraisesaloneassignmentoferrorinhisbriefnamely:
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APELLANT
FOR THE CRIME CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[5]
Accusedappellantallegesthatthetestimonyofthemedicolegalofficerrepudiatesandcontradicts
thetestimonyofprivatecomplainantthataccusedappellanthadsexualcongresswithherandthatit
wassopainfulthatshefeltlikeherprivateorganwasbeingtorn.Themedicolegalofficercategorically
stated that there were no fresh lacerations and that the private part of the complainant could not
accommodate an erect penis, and it is highly improbable that the crime of rape was committed on
August 26, 1997. Moreover, the demeanor of Ella after the alleged incident, i.e. that she simply
excused herself to urinate and thereafter slept, is contrary to human nature. Lastly, the accused
appellant claims it is perplexing that Ellas own mother testified in his favor by corroborating his
testimonythathewasattendingthewakeofafriendatthetimeoftheallegedincident.
The Solicitor General pleads that the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable
doubt and prays for affirmance of the decision with modification of the award of damages from
P50,000.00toP75,000.00.
The Reply Brief filed by accusedappellant reiterates the same arguments pleaded to seek an
acquittal.Itisfurthercontendedthatevenassumingthattheguiltoftheaccusedappellanthadbeen
proven beyond reasonable doubt, the accusedappellant cannot be meted the extreme penalty of
deathinviewofthefactthattheinformationfailedtoallegetherelationshipoftheaccusedappellant
tothevictimasaqualifyingcircumstance.Thustheaccusedappellantwasnotproperlyinformedthat
heisbeingaccusedofqualifiedrape.
We affirm the judgment finding that the guilt of the accusedappellant has been proven beyond
reasonable doubt, but hereby reduce the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua in line with
establishedprecedents.
ThetestimonyofEllarelatingthesexualassaultwascategoricalandclear:
PROS(tothewitness)
NowElla,doyourecallonAugust26,1997earlymorning,wherewereyouatthattime?
A:Iwasinourhouse,sir.
Q:Whereisyourhouselocated?
A:InPayatas,QuezonCity.
Q:NowwillyoupleasetelltheCourtiftherewasanunusualincidentthathappenedtoyouonthatday?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:TelltheCourtwhatwasthatunusualincident?
A:Aftereatingdinnerwhere(sic)abouttogotosleepandhetoldmenottosleepyet,sir.
Q:NowafterthatElla,whathappenednext,ifany?
A:Hetoldmetogetinsidetheroomofmymother,sir.
Q:BythewayMr.(sic)witness,whowerewithyouinsidethathouseatthattime?
A:Myyoungersiblings,sir.
Q:Howmanysiblingsdoyouhave?
A:Two(2),sir.
Q:Couldyoutellusthenamesofyoursiblings?
A:IamreferringtomybrothersJuliusandJordan,sir.
Q:Afteryouweretoldtogototheroomofyourmother,wherewastheaccusedthen?
A:Hewasalsoabouttogetinsidetheroom,sir.
Q:Wereyouabletoentertheroom?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:By the way Madam witness, where was your mother then when you were told by the accused to enter
yourroomsmother(sic)?
A:Shewasnotathomeduringthattime,sir.
Q:Now,whileyouwereinsidetheroom,canyoutellusMadamwitnesswhathappenednext,ifany?
A:Heorderedmetoremovemyclothes,sir.
Q:TellusElla,whatwereyouwearingatthattime?
A:Iwaswearingashortandablouse,sir.
Q:WhenyouweretoldbyMelencioBaliBalitatoundress,didyouheedhisorder?
A:No,sir.
Q:Whenyoudefy(sic)theorderoftheaccused,whathappenednextifany?
A:Hewastheonewhoremove(sic)myshortandmypanty,sir.
Q:AfterthatMadamwitness,whathappenedifany?
A:Healsoundress,(sic)sir.
Q:Aftertheaccusedundress(sic)himself,whathappenednext,ifany?
A:Hetoldmetoliedown,sir.
Q:Where?
A:Atthebedofmymother,sir.
Q:Wereyouabletoliedownontopofthebed?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:Nowafterthat,whenyouwerelyingdownontopofthebed,whathappenednext,ifany?
A:Hewentontopofme,sir.
Q:WhenMelencioBalibalitatheaccusedwentontopofyou,whatdidyoudo?
A:Icried,sir.
Q:Andwhatwasthereactionoftheaccusedwhenyouwerecryingthen?
A:Hetoldmetogetupandafterthathepokeaknifeatme.
Q:AndthenafterthatElla,whathappenedifany?
COURT:
Putonrecordthatthewitnessiscrying.
A:Heinsertedhisprivateorgan.
ATTY.STA.ANA:(totheCourt)
YourHonor,wewillmovetostrikeouttheanswerconsideringthattheinformationsaysitwasnottheprivate
organitwasthefinger.
COURT:
Putonrecordtheobservationofcounseloftheaccused.
PROS:(totheWitness)
Nowbeforetheaccusedinsertedhisprivateorgan,whatdidtheaccuseddotoyou,ifany?
A:Heinsertedhisfingerintomyprivateorgan,sir.
Q:AndwhatdidyoutellEllaatthattimewhentheaccusedwasinsertinghisfingerinsideyourprivatepart,if
therewasany?
A:Ifeltpain,sir.
Q:NowwhenMelenciowentontopofyouandinsertedhisprivatepartonyouclaimed,whatdidyoufeel
then?
A:Itwaspainful,asifitwasbeingtorn.
Q:Nowwhenyouwerefeelingpain,whatdidyoudoifany?
A:Iwascryingbecauseitwasreallypainful,sir.
Q:AndhowabouttheaccusedMelencioBaliBalita,whatwashisreactionwhenyouwerecryingthen?
A:Hetoldmenottomakeanoise,sir.
Q:NowElla,afterthatwhathappenednextifany?
A:Heorderedmetobendmybackfacinghim.(pinatuwadniyaako)
Q:Afteryouweretoldtobendandturnyourbackinfrontofhim,whatdidMelencioBaliBalitadotoyouif
therewasany?
A:Heplacehimselfontopofme,sir.
Q:AfterthatElla,whathappenednextifany?
A:Afterthatsomethingcameoutfromhisprivateorgansomethingthatwassticky.
Q:NowafterthatElla,whathappenednext,ifany?
A:ItoldhimthatIamgoingtourinate,sir.
Q:DidMelencioBaliBalitaallowyoutourinate?
A:Yes,sir,heevenorderedmetoimmediatelycomeback,sir.
Q:Andwereyouabletourinate?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:NowdidyoucomebacktoMelencioBaliBalitaafteryouweretoldbyhimtourinate?
A:No,sir,Iwentbacktomyroom,sir.
Q:Andwhoweretheresleepingatthattimewhenyouwentbacktoyourroom?
A:Mytwo(2)brothers,sir.
Q:HowaboutMelencioBaliBalita,wherewasheatthattime,ifyouknow?
A:Hewasthereinsidetheroomofmymother,sir.
Q:AfterthatMs.Witness,whathappenednext,ifany?
A:Hecalledme,sir.
Q:AnddidyouheedtothecallofMelencioBaliBalita?
A:No,sir,becauseItoldhimthatIwasgoingtosleep,sir.
Q:Thenafterthatwhathappenednextifany?
A:Hetoldmetosleepinsidetheroomofmymotherandhewilltransfermefromourroomtomymothers
room,sir.
Q:WasMelencioBaliBalitaabletotransferyoufromyourroomtoyourmothersroom?
A:No,sir.
Q:NowafterthatMadamwitness,whatdidyoudo,ifany?
A:Ididnotreturn,sir.[6]
We do not find the above testimony as inconsistent with or contradictory to the medicolegal
findings.Dr.CristinaFreyratestifiedonredirectexaminationinreplytothequestionspropoundedby
thecourtasfollows:
COURT:
So,thelacerationsthatyoufoundcouldhavebeeninflictedonsomeothertime,date?
A:Yes,yourhonor.
Q:Whenyouexaminedthevictim,thevictimwasnolongeravirginasshehadlacerationsonthehymen?
A:Yes,yourhonor.
Q:Wasthereasignofreddeningordiscolorationofthelabiaminoraoftheprivateorgan?
A:LabiaMinoraiscongestedandsoisthefourchetteportion.
Q:Inlaymanslanguagewhatdoyoumean?
A:Thereisreddeningofthelabiaminoraandtheabrasionwhichmeansthatthesuperficialephetheliallayer
oftheskinisremoved.
Q:Therewasthendiscoloration?
A:Yes,yourhonor.
Q:Whatmighthavecausedthediscolorationorabrasion?
A:Thefrictionbroughtaboutbyrubbingofahardbluntobject.[7]
Although Dr. Freyra testified that the lacerations found on Ellas private part were healed
lacerations, which means that they were inflicted more than seven days prior to the examination
conducted, this finding does not negate the commission of rape on August 26, 1997. As correctly
pointed out by the trial court hymenal lacerations which are usually inflicted when there is complete
penetrationarenotessentialinestablishingthecrimeofrapeasitisenoughthataslightpenetration
orentryofthepenisintothelipsofthevaginatakesplace.Theconclusionisinlinewithjurisprudence
to the effect that complete penetration of the penis is not essential to consummate rape what is
materialisthatthereistheintroductionofthemaleorganintothelabiaofthepudendum,nomatter
howslight.[8]
Thus,inthecaseofPeoplevs.Campuhan,[9]thisCourtstated:
We have said often enough that in concluding that carnal knowledge took place, full penetration of the vaginal
orice is not an essential ingredient, nor is the rupture of the hymen necessary; the mere touching of the external
genitalia by the penis capable of consummating the sexual act is sufcient to constitute carnal knowledge. But
the act of touching should be understood here as inherently part of the entry of the penis into the labias of the
female organ and not mere touching alone of the mons pubis or the pudendum.
In People vs. Dela Pea we claried that the decisions nding a case for rape even if the attackers penis merely
touched the external portions of the female genitalia were made in the context of the presence or existence of an
erect penis capable of full penetration. Where the accused failed to achieve an erection, had a limp or accid
penis, or an oversized penis which could not t into the victims vagina, the Court nonetheless held that rape was
consummated on the basis of the victims testimony that the accused repeatedly tried, but in vain, to insert his
penis into her vagina and in all likelihood reached the labia of the pudendum as the victim felt his organ on the
lips of her vulva, or that the penis of the accused touched the middle part of her vagina. Thus, touching when
applied to rape cases does not simply mean mere epidermal contact, stroking or grazing of organs, a slight brush
or a scrape of the penis on the external layer of the victims vagina, or the mons pubis, as in this case. There must
be sufcient and convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias or slid into the female organ, and not
merely stroked the external surface thereof, for an accused to be convicted of consummated rape. As the labias,
which are required to be touched by the penis, are by their natural situs or location beneath the mons pubis or the
vaginal surface, to touch them with the penis is to attain some degree of penetration beneath the surface, hence,
the conclusion that touching the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum constitutes consummated
rape.
ThefactthatEllaadmittedthataftershewasaskedbyaccusedappellanttoreturnaftershewent
outtourinate,butshedidnot,andthereafterwenttoherroomtosleep,doesnotprovethatnothing
happened.Ellawasbarelyatthethresholdofpubertywhentheincidenthappenedandtheaccused
wastheliveinpartnerofhermother,andthereforeexercisedsomedegreeofmoralascendancyover
her.Thereisnotypicalreactionornormofbehaviorthatensueforthwithorlaterfromvictimsofrape.
[10] Itisnotpropertojudgetheactionsofchildrenwhohaveundergonetraumaticexperiencebythe
norms of behavior expected under the circumstances from mature persons.[11] The workings of the
humanmindwhenplacedunderemotionalstressareunpredictableandthatpeoplereactdifferently.
[12]
Timeandagain,thisCourthasruledthatitisunlikelyforayounggirllikethecomplainantandher
family to impute the crime of rape to their own blood relative and face social humiliation if not to
vindicate the honor of the complainant.[13] In rape cases, when a woman says that she has been
raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed, and if her
testimonymeetsthetestofcredibility,theaccusedmaybeconvictedonthebasisthereof.Itisrather
inconceivable that a daughter should concoct a story that she was repeatedly raped by her father
whenfamilyhonorisatstake,nottomentionthatthiswouldmeansendingherfathertojail.[14] The
testimony of rape victims who are of tender age are credible. The revelation of an innocent child
whosechastitywasabuseddeservesfull credit,asthe willingnessofthecomplainantto facepolice
investigationandtoundergothetroubleandhumiliationofapublictrialiseloquenttestimonyofthe
truthofhercomplaint.[15]ThefactthatthemotherofElladidnotbelieveherdaughtersaccusationand
insteadcorroboratedthetestimonyoftheaccusedappellantthatheattendedawakeatthedateand
time of the incident in question, does not establish that Ella concocted the story about the sexual
assault. It is unthinkable that a young girl like Ella would fabricate a story that would destroy her
reputation and her family life and endure the ordeal of a trial were it not for the purpose of seeking
redress.NoevidencewaspresentedtoshowanymotiveonthepartofEllatofalselytestifyagainst
theaccusedappellant.
Wethereforefindnoreasontodisturborsetasidethetrialcourtsfindingssupportingthejudgment
ofconviction.Conclusionsastothecredibilityofwitness,particularlyinrapecases,liewiththesound
judgmentofthecourt,andwillberespectedonappeal,unlessthereappearsintherecordsomefact
orcircumstancewhichthetrialcourtoverlookedormisappreciatedandwhichifproperlyconsidered,
wouldhavealteredtheresultsofthecase.[16]
Thepenaltyimposedhowever,mustbereducedtoreclusionperpetua.
Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Section 11 of R. A. 7659, the
concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender is a special qualifying
circumstance.Assuchtheirattendanceinthecommissionofthecrimemustbeproperlypleadedin
theinformationbecauseitchangesthenatureoftheoffenseand,ifprovenbeyondreasonabledoubt,
increasesthepenaltybyonedegree.[17]
Inthecasebeforeus,thevictimherselftestifiedthatshewasbornonApril12,1987andthatshe
wasrapedbytheaccusedonAugust26,1997.[18]Shewasonlytenyearsandfourmonthsoldatthe
timeoftherape.WenotethatthevictimtestifiedincourtinDecember1997oraboutfourmonthsafter
therape,anditwouldnothavebeendifficultforthetrialcourttotakejudicialnoticethatthevictimis
under18yearsofage.[19]
We find, however, that the filiation of the appellant to the victim was not properly alleged in the
information.Sections7and9Rule110oftheRevisedRulesonCriminalProcedurestates:
Sec. 7 Name of the accused.- A complaint or information must state the name and surname of the accused or any
appellation or nickname by which he has been or is known, or if his name cannot be discovered he must be
described under a ctitious name with a statement that his true name is unknown.
If in the course of the proceeding the true name of he accused is disclosed b him, or appears in some other
manner to the court, the true name shall be inserted in the complaint or information and record.
Sec. 9. Cause of accusation.-The acts or omission complained of as constituting the offense must be stated in
ordinary and concise language without repetition, not necessarily in terms of the statute dening the offense, but
in such form as is sufcient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be
charged and enable the court to pronounce judgment.
TheInformationuponwhichtheappellantwaschargedstatesasfollows:
The undersigned accuses MELENCIO BALI-BALITA, common law husband of the complainants mother, of the
crime of Rape, committed as follows:
knowledge with the undersigned complainant against her will and without her consent.
CONTRARY LAW.[20]
It appears to us that the relationship of the accused to the victim is stated as a more detailed
description of the identity of the party who committed the crime charged. Such relationship is not
stated in the cause of the accusation or in the narration of the act or omissions constituting the
offense.Everyelementoftheoffensemustbeallegedandiftheaccusedisbeingchargedofacrime
in its qualified form the qualifying circumstance must likewise be stated with certainty to enable a
person of common understanding to be apprised of the acts or omissions of which he is charged,
although the legal designation of the crime committed need not be specifically stated. Due process
requiresthattheaccusedisdulyinformedofthenatureandthecauseoftheaccusationagainsthim.
Sucharequirementisprimarilyintendedtoenabletheaccusedtosuitablypreparehisdefenseashe
ispresumedinnocentandofnoindependentknowledgeoftheactsconstitutiveofthecrimecharged
againsthim.[21]Whatiscontrollingisthedescriptionofthecriminalactandnot,asinthiscase,the
descriptionoftheidentityoftheaccused.Ithasbeenheldthattherealnatureofthecriminalchargeis
determined not from the caption or the preamble of the information nor from the specification of the
provisionoflawallegedtohavebeenviolated..Butfromtheactualrecitalofthefactsasallegedin
the body of the information.[22] In this case the information upon which the appellant was arraigned
doesnotstateinthespecificationoftheactsconstitutiveoftheoffensethatheischargedasthelive
inpartnerofthemotheroftheallegedvictim.Thisinsufficiencypreventsajudgmentofconvictionfor
qualifiedrapeandthus,thedeathpenaltycannotbeimposed.Thevictimbeingunder12yearsoldat
thetimeofthecommissionofthecrime,thecrimecommittedisstatutoryrapeandtheproperpenalty
underArt335oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamendedbyR.A.7659,isreclusionperpetua.[23]
ThevictimisentitledtoindemnityofP50,000.00inlinewithprevailingjurisprudence,[24]inaddition
tomoraldamagesintheamountofP50,000.00.Thisisseparateanddistinctfromtheawardofmoral
damageswhichisautomaticallygrantedinrapecases.[25]
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed insofar as it finds the accusedappellant
Melencio Balibalita guilty of the crime of rape with the modification that the penalty imposed is
reducedtoreclusionperpetua,andtheaccusedappellantisdirectedtopaythevictimP50,000.00by
wayofindemnity,inadditiontoP50,000.00asmoraldamages.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,Melo,Puno,Vitug,Kapunan,Mendoza,Panganiban,Purisima,Buena,and De
Leon,JJ.,concur.
Bellosillo,J.,seeseparateopinion.
Quisumbing,andPardo,JJ.,concursintheseparateopinionofJ.Bellosillo.
YnaresSantiago,J.,onleave.
SEPARATEOPINION
BELLOSILLO,J.:
Iamextremelyelatedthatahumanlifeissavedinthiscase,asthesupremepenaltyofdeathis
notimposed.Thus, I concur with the majority that the accused must only be sentenced to reclusion
perpetua. While I am convinced that the qualifying circumstances of minority and filiation are duly
allegedintheInformation,thedeathpenalty,nonetheless,maynotbeimposedinviewofthefailureof
theprosecutiontoprovetheminorityofthecomplainingwitnessbeyondreasonabledoubt.
Apparently,theponenciareliesmerelyonthetestimoniesofthecomplainingwitnessandherhalf
sisterinconcludingthattheageofthevictimwasprovedbeyondreasonabledoubt.Corollarily,itruled
that there being no serious doubt as to the age of the victim, the presentation of the victims birth
certificateorotherofficialdocumenttoproveherrealage1becomesunnecessary.Foronething,there
being no serious doubt cannot be equated with nor be a substitute for the requisite proof beyond
reasonabledoubt.
TheTestimoniesofthecomplainingwitnessandherhalfsisterwerefarfrombeingconsistentwith
eachother.Theformerassertedthatshewas11yearsoldwhenrapedwhileherhalfsistertestified
thatthevictimwasonly10yearsold.InherdirectexaminationvictimEllaMagdasoctestified
Prosecutor:NowElla,howoldareyou?
Ella:Eleven(11)yearsold,sir.
Q:Anddoyourecallyourbirthday?
A:IwasbornonApril12,1987,sir.2
Oncrossexaminationshestatedthat
Atty.Sta.Ana:Now,howoldareyouonAugust26,1997?
A:10yearsold,sir.3
On the other hand, Miriam C. Gozun, the halfsister of the victim, testified in her direct
examination
Pros.Catubay:Madamwitness,doyouknowEllaMagdasoc?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:Whydoyouknowher?
A:Sheismyhalfsister.
Q:DoyouknowhowoldisEllaMagdasoconAugust26,1997?
A:11yearsold.4
Granting that there was only a 1year difference in the supposed age of the victim, this
discrepancyshouldnotbetakenlightlybecausethelifeoftheaccusedappellantisatstake.Nosingle
independentproofwaspresentedbytheprosecutiontoestablishthefactthatthecomplainingwitness
wasbelow18yearsatthetimeoftheincident.Althoughaccusedappellantdidnothaveanyoccasion
to deny or offer any objection to the age of the victim, this did not excuse the prosecution from
dischargingitsburdenofprovingtheageofthevictimbeyondreasonabledoubt.
Theminorityofthevictim,aswellasthefiliationofthecontendingparties,whenproperlyalleged
intheInformationandprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtduringthetrial,elevatesthecrimeofsimple
rapetoqualifiedrape,whichmeritstheimpositionofthepenaltyofdeath.Assuch,nothingbutproof
beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which an accused is
charged must be alleged in the Information and duly established by the prosecution in order for the
extremepenaltytobeupheld.Verily,theminorityofthevictimmustbeprovedwithequalcertaintyand
clearnessasthecrimeitselfotherwise,asheldinPeoplev.Sandrias5failuretosufficientlyestablish
thevictim'sageisfatalandconsequentlybarsconvictionforrapeinitsqualifiedform.
InPeoplev.Veloso6thevictimwasallegedtohavebeenonly9yearsofageatthetimeshewas
raped.Althoughbyappearancethevictimmayhavedefinitelyappearedbelow18years,thetrialcourt
didnottakejudicialnoticeofthefactthatthevictimwasoftenderage.This Court affirmed the trial
courtrulingthatminoritywasnotprovedbeyondreasonabledoubt.Thus
The trial court correctly ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the age of the victim other than through her
testimony and that of her father. Thus, in People v. Vargas (257 SCRA 603, 1996), it was held that:
In the case at bar, however, no birth or baptismal certicate was presented to prove the age of the victim. Neither
was there a showing that said documents were lost or destroyed to justify their non-presentation. The trial court
should not have relied on the testimony of Cornelia as to her age nor the testimony of her Aunt Margarita
Quilang. Both testimonies are hearsay. Nor was it correct for the trial court to judge the victim's age by
considering her appearance.
Theminorityofthevictimmustbeestablishedbeyondreasonabledoubtevenifuncontestedby
thedefense.Onthisissue,thisCourtruledinPeoplev.Cula7
In the case at bar, the trial court pursuant to Section 11 of Republic Act 7659, imposed the penalty of death upon
accused-appellant Manuel Cula, taking into account the minority of Maricel as she is said to have been only 16
years old at the time of the rape incident, as well as the relationship of father and daughter between them.
However, in a similar and recent case (People v. Javier, G.R. No. 126096, July 26, 1999) this Court pronounced:
However it is signicant to note that the prosecution failed to present the birth certicate of the complainant.
Although the victim's age was not contested by the defense, proof of age of the victim is particularly necessary
in this case considering that the victim's age which was then 16 years old is just two years less that the majority
age of 18. In this age of modernism, there is hardly any difference between a 16-year old girl and an 18-year old
one insofar as physical features and attributes are concerned. A physically developed 16-year old lass may be
mistaken for an 18-year old young woman, in the same manner that a frail and young looking 18-year old lady
may pass as a 16-year old minor. Thus, it is in this context that independent proof of the actual age of a rape
victim becomes vital and essential so as to remove an iota of doubt that the victim is indeed under 18 years of
age as to fall under the qualifying circumstances enumerated in Republic Act No. 7659.
At all events, it is the burden of the prosecution to prove with certainty the fact that the victim was below 18
when the rape was committed in order to justify the imposition of the death penalty. The record of the case is
bereft of any independent evidence, such as the victim's duly certied Certicate of Live Birth, accurately
showing private complainant's age. The fact that accused-appellant Manuel has not denied the allegation in the
complaint that Maricel was 16 .years old when the crime was committed cannot make up for the failure of the
prosecution to discharge its burden in this regard. Because of this lapse, as well as the corresponding failure of
the trial court to make a categorical nding as to the minority of the victim, we hold that the qualifying
circumstance of minority under Republic Act No. 7659 cannot be appreciated in this case, and accordingly the
death penalty cannot be imposed.
In the instant case, the prosecution utterly failed to discharge its burden of proving beyond
reasonabledoubttheminorityofthevictim.Also, the trial court did not make any categorical finding
that, indeed, the victim was 11 years old at the time of the rape.It merely relied on the selfserving
testimoniesofthecomplainingwitnessandherhalfsister.
Death is a penalty so extreme that it becomes imperative for this Court to calibrate and weigh
everypieceofevidencepresentedwithutmostcaution.Incaseslikethis,theCourtcannotpresume
thatthevictimisasoldassheclaimstobe.Forsure,aperson'sagecanbeprovedbyotherextrinsic
evidence such as his birth certificate. If the birth certificate cannot be produced, the reason for its
unavailabilityshouldbestatedandotherpieceofevidenceoughttobepresentedtoestablishtheage
ofthevictim.Intheinstantcase,theprosecutiondidnotevenbothertosubmitcomplainingwitness'
birthcertificateneitherdiditexplainitsunavailabilityandthereaftersubmitotherprooftoestablishthe
victim'sage.
Inrecentdeathpenaltycases,thisCourthasbeencautiouswithitsinterpretationoftheattendant
qualifying circumstances. Thus, if the offender is not a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian or
commonlawspouseofthemotherofthevictim,itwouldnotsufficethatitismerelyallegedthatthe
offender is a relation. It must be alleged in the Information that he is a relative by consanguinity or
affinitywithinthethirdcivildegree.8InPeople v. Licanda9 the prosecutionmerelyallegedthat accused
appellantwasthe"naturalfatherofthevictim"butdidnotpresentanyevidencetoshowthatthevictim
wasindeedaccusedappellant'sdaughter.Therelationshipbecamemoresuspectasthevictimborea
surnamedifferentfromthatofaccusedappellant.Inresolvingtheissueoffiliation,thisCourtruledthat
"the problem could have been easily remedied by the prosecution by presenting Nelita's birth
certificateoranyotherdocumentaryevidencewhichshowsthenameofNelita'sfather.Thefailureof
the prosecution to do so should be taken in favor of accusedappellant considering that it has the
burdenofprovingitsallegationsespeciallyinadeathpenaltycasewherethelifeofahumanbeing
hangsinthebalance."10
The ponencia also posits that the prosecution failed to plead the concurrence of minority and
relationship in the Information. I disagree. The Complaint11 dated 1 September 1997 filed by the
complaining witness, which was treated as the Information by Asst. City Pros. Rolando G. Mislang,
reads
COMPLAINT
The undersigned accuses MELENCIO BALI-BALITA, common law husband of the complainant's mother of the
crime of Rape committed as follows:
knowledge with the undersigned complainant against her will and without her consent (underscoring supplied) x
xxx
(Sgd.) Ella Magdasoc y Carbona
Clearly,therelationship(commonlawhusbandofcomplainant'smother)andtheageofthevictim
(minor,11yearsofage)wereconcurrentlypleadedintheComplaint/Information.Theponenciaclaims
that although Melencio BaliBalita was mentioned as the commonlaw husband of complainant's
motherintheopeningstatementoftheInformation,thesamemerelydescribeshisidentityandcould
not be deemed as an allegation of his relationship with the complainant as the same was not
reiteratedinthesecondparagraphthereof.
Thereasoningseemsflawed.Basically,itisimmaterialwhetherthephrasecommonlawhusband
of complainant's mother is mentioned in the opening paragraph of the Information or in the second
paragraphallegingtheactsconstitutingthecrimecharged,aseitherisanintegralpartthereof.Plainly,
theopeningparagraphisanindispensablepartoftheComplaint/Information,whichnormallystates
thenameoftheaccused.Itisnotnecessary,muchlessmandatory,thatthenameoftheaccusedor
hisdescriptionbestatedspecificallyinthesecondparagraphoftheInformation.Section6,Rule110,
oftheRulesonCriminalProcedurestates
Sec. 6. Sufciency of complaint or information. - A complaint or information is sufcient if it states the name of
the accused; the designation of the offense by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the
offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time of the commission of the offense; and the place
wherein the offense was committed.
When the offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall be included in the complaint or
information.
Whenthesecondparagraphhereinquotedrequiresthat[w]henanoffenseiscommittedbymore
thanoneperson,allofthemshallbeincludedinthecomplaintorinformation,allthesenames,which
indeed are essential and indispensable, are stated only in the opening statement and not in the
"accusatory" paragraph of the Information, which simply means that the "opening statement" is an
integral part of the Information and may not be taken for granted as mere descriptive words or
phrases.
TheInformationintheinstantcaseiscomplete.Thenameofaccusedappellantisstated,among
others, so with his filiation with the complaining witness. In other words, under the hereinquoted
provision,itisnotrequiredthatthenameoftheaccusedbestatedintheopeningparagraphorinthe
accusatoryportionoftheInformation.ItisenoughthatitissostatedundertheheadingInformation.In
fact,whenSec.6requiresthataComplaintorInformationtobesufficientmuststatethenameofthe
accusedandthedesignationoftheoffensebythestatute,amongothers,suchnameanddesignation
oftheoffenseareonlystatedintheopeningstatementimmediatelyfollowingtheheadingComplaint
orInformation,asquotedandaptlyshowninthisSeparateOpinion.Inotherwords,thefiliationofthe
victimandtheaccusedintheinstantcaseissufficientlyallegedintheComplaint/Information.
Awordmore. The ponencia also ruled that "as correctly pointed out by the trial court, hymenal
lacerations which are usually inflicted when there is complete penetration are not essential in
establishingthecrimeofrapeasitisenoughthataslightpenetrationorentryofthepenisintothelips
ofthevaginatakesplace.Todispelanypossiblemisunderstandingorconfusion,thisstatementmust
be properly viewed in light of People v. Campuhan, G.R. No. 129433, 30 March 2000, where this
Courtdiscussedquiteextensivelyanddifferentiatedattemptedrapefromconsummatedrape.Therein,
theCourtexplicitlyruledthatforrapetobeconsideredconsummateditmustbeestablishedthatthe
penis penetrated at the very least the labia of the external genitalia, which is actually beneath the
pudendum, hence, the entry or penetration otherwise, mere touching of the labia will not suffice to
constituteconsummatedrape.
1Draftponencia,p.14,1stpar.
2TSN,1December1997,p.3.
5G.R.No.126096,26July1999.
6G.R.No.130333,12April2000.
7G.R.No.133146,28March2000.
8Peoplev.AntonioFerolinoakaFranciscoFerolino,G.R.Nos.13173031,5April2000.
9G.R.No.134084,4May2000.
10Ibid.
11Rollo,pp.45.
[1]1Record,p.1.1
[2]2Decision,pp.24Rollopp.1517.2
[3]3Rollo,p.17.3
[4]4Decision,p.9Rollop.22.4
[5]5Rollo,p.36.5
[6]6Tsn,December1,1997,pp.511.6
[7]7Tsn,November12,1997,p.12.7
[8]8Peoplevs.Faigano,254SCRA10Peoplevs.Calimba,253SCRA722Peoplevs.Zaballero,274SCRA627.8
[9]9G.R.No.129433,March30,2000.9
[10]10Peoplevs.Deleverio,289SCRA547.10
[11]11Peoplevs.Sta.Ana,291SCRA188.11
[12]12Peoplevs.Alfeche,294SCRA352.12
[13]13Peoplevs.Perez,307SCRA276Peoplevs.Namayan,246SCRA646.13
[14]14Peoplevs.Sugano,G.R.No.127574,July20,1999Peoplevs.Emocling,297SCRA214.14
[15]15Peoplevs.Mengote,305SCRA380Peoplevs.Victor,292SCRA186.15
[16]16Peoplevs.Apilo,263SCRA582.16
[17]17Peoplevs.Perez,296SCRA17Peoplevs.Sugano,G.R.No.127574,July20,1999.17
[18]18Tsn.,pp.35,December1,1997.18
[19]19Peoplevs.Javier,G.RNo.126096,July26,1999Peoplevs.Cula,G.RNo.133146,March28,2000.19
[20]20Record,p.1.20
[21]21Peoplevs.Garcia,281SCRA463Dansvs.People,285SCRA504Peoplevs.Bolatete,303SCRA709Regalado,
RemedialLawCompendium,vol.II,1995ed.,p.250Pamaran,CriminalProcedureAnnotated,1997ed.,pp.7280.21
[22]22Buhatvs.CourtofAppeals,265SCRA701at716717.22
[23]23TheAntiRapeLawof1997wasnotyetineffectatthetimethecrimewascommitted.23
[24]24Peoplevs.Perez,307SCRA276Peoplevs.Prades,293SCRA411.24
[25]25Peoplevs.Victor,292SCRA186Peoplevs.Pili,289SCRA118Peoplevs.Gementiza,285SCRA478.25

People v. Bali Balita

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Bali Balita

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/8/2017 People vs Bali-balita : 134266 : September 15, 2000 : J.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. MELENCIO BALIBALITA,

GENERAL AND EXTRAGENITAL:

Subject is in non-virgin state physically.

(Sgd.) Ella Magdasoc y Carbona

You might also like